Posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:01 AM PST by vietvet67
Yes - my oversight. Thanks
Remember when the Democrats demanded President Bush’s dental records?
“No! I detest brainless rules-based approaches like this. It’s almost like we don’t want to single out Obama. Yes we do.”
Methinks perhaps you don’t understand the entire basis for this lawsuit. The president must be a natural born citizen, regardless of their family history. Holding people to different standards is unconstitutional in itself. Anyone who is to become president MUST be a natural born citizen, and should be prepared to provide proof of that. If your goal is to single out Obama, upholding the Consitution is nowhere near your real agenda, and you are undoubtedly contributing to the idea that this entire issue is just a partisan witch hunt. In other words, you’re doing more harm than good.
present
I've refrained from commenting on these threads in the past but really, there is no court in America that will hold Obama ineligible to be President. He's taking office January 20, we need to deal with that and not be sidetracked by non-starters like this.
Cannot prove that, but the statement does indicate he is somewhat of a crackpot, are maybe he is just a little cracked. Probably delivered by c-section that's not natural.!!!
LOL
There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.
Standing is another procedural rule of the legal system designed to put the court in a position where its orders are enforceable. So are the requirements of a case or controversy (plaintiff and defendant on opposite sides of an argument with harm flowing from one to the other); jurisdiction; and justiciability.
You may view those as dodges but they are not--they are substantive legal requirements of getting a legal proceeding before the courts; they exist for a reason.
In the case at hand, had competent counsel been engaged to pursue the issue last spring, the issue would have been resolved. The narrow time window in which a case could have been pursued to a decision between the election and the Electoral College is probably closing fast enough now that it will not be possible to get an effective challenge in place.
But other forms of action exist between the Electoral College and again after inauguration. Capable lawyers will ultimately get the issue before a court with the power to decide the issue.
Obama should be singled out because the location of his birth is in question. This wasnt the case for the last 200 years. There was no need for John F. Kennedy’s birth certificate to be produced. Common sense and reason should prevail not moronic process-run-amuck.
But what could be more of a law than the Constitution? If the SCOTUS says that this is something that should be done by the SoS of each state, well, what if the SoS is politically inclined NOT to do so?
Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be somewhat above politics, and the last resort if the rest of the country is deciding EVERYTHING based on political coercion? I mean, that is our problem, isn't it? Our public systems of information (MSM) all want Obama to be President so they wouldn't call for vetting him properly, whether it's the law or not.
I believe he's a 9/11 Truther. Makes him a crackpot by definition.
I ask everyone to go the Donofrio web site listed below and read, read, read. Our Constitution must be upheld no matter WHO is President!
The Donofrio case may be considered to have merit since it was referred to Conference by the full court, not just Justice Thomas. We will know their decision tomorrow and it takes four of the nine Justices to vote for a full hearing of the case.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Yes, I am spreading the news about the Constitutional issue because I think this is very important. Finally some more Freepers are beginning to look into this issue. I am certainly not a “tinfoil hat” wearer but have been following these cases since October.
You may be interested to hear more about this issue by listening to Plains Radio Network on line at http://www.plainsradio.com/ this evening. The exact time I do not know at this time. Currently they are playing previous taped interviews with Leo Donofrio, Curt Wrotnowski, and Freeper Joe Thunder. This will most likely be followed by the replaying of more current interviews.
You might also be interested to know that tomorrow there will be a Press Conference at the Washington Press Club at 1:00 or 1:30. Leo Donofrio WILL NOT be at the Press Conference. Any reports that he would be are completely false. It will be interesting to see what Media reporters show up at the Press Club!
Some other FR Threads are listed below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144344/posts?page=380#380
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144360/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144417/posts?q=1&;page=1
The terms and conditions he stated are standard for obtaining a security clearance. For Top Secret the periodic re-investigation happens every 5-yrs, whereas the Secret clearance requires the re-investigation every 7-yrs (I think).
“Fictitious”, “nonexistant”, “unreal” COLB of He Who’s Birth Certificate Cannot Be Viewed.
This is not about who would be the best President. That decision was supposed to be made by us last year, and the votes are in. It does not matter who the President or Vice President is; this is large and serious for the future of our country. The Constitution is what our President must uphold, and he must first be eligible to hold the office. We need to clarify the “natural born” definition and make sure that Barack Obama fits it.
Why! He’s PreFident-Elect! Don’t ask questions!
“Prefident
Pref”i*dent\, a. [Cf. L. praefidens overconfident. See Pre-, and Confident.] Trusting beforehand; hence, overconfident. [Obs.] —Baxter.”
It’s the first I’ve heard that to get a security clearance, you can’t be a dual national. So no employee with a clearance can be married to a non-citizen, or have been naturalized, even as a child?
I’ve posted on another thread, even if he produces it now, it’s been too long to make us look like fools. It should make it look like he attempted to deceive us. He ought to be disqualified on that basis alone. However, Ido not believe he has a valid bc, and America should not tolerate a disqualified candidate. And you are correct, if the courts won’t remove him, the citizens should.
"His blue tourist passport, which he had taken across Asia, Australia and Africa as well as most of Europe, was replaced by a burgundy one that designates him an official of the U.S. government."
A Foreign Classroom for a Junior Senator http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509230360sep23,0,1103689.story?page=2
Didn’t Obama just schedule a very expensive little getaway in Hawaii? Wonder what deals have been made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.